Removal of babies from parents: the law

I have been reading with growing alarm about the case of Fran Lyons and in the press (see this Daily Mail article . I have to say I rarely like to get drawn into this sort of debate as usually you can only hear one half of the story. But the half that I have heard causes me great concern. Fran has clearly had some problems earlier in her life and now she is expecting a baby. The local authority are saying that they will remove the baby at birth. Fran is understandably terrified about what will happen. I don’t know all the background details of the case but if half of what is written about the case is true, the local authority would be well advised to take a look at an article I have written (see resources page of the main website) originally published on Family Law Week. In one of the cases referred to the Mr Justice McFarlane specifically says that cases involving fabricated or induced illness with no medical evidence of immediate risk of direct harm to the child will rarely warrant an emergency protection order. In addition there is case law which suggests that Munchausens Syndrome By Proxy (MBSP) or factititious illness (a syndrome in which parents are thought to fabricate or induce illness in children) does not even exist. Mr Justice Ryder said this: “The terms ‘Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy’ and ‘Factitious (and Induced) Illness (by Proxy)’ are child protection labels that are merely descriptions of a range of behaviours, not a paediatric, psychiatric or psychological disease that is identifiable. The terms do not relate to an organised or universally recognised body of knowledge or experience that has identified a medical disease (ie an illness or condition) and there are no internationally accepted medical criteria for the use of either label. In reality, the use of the label is intended to connote that in the individual case there are materials susceptible of analysis by paediatricians and of findings of fact by a court concerning fabrication, exaggeration, minimisation or omission in the reporting of symptoms and evidence of harm by act, omission or suggestion (induction). Where such facts exist the context and assessments can provide an insight into the degree of risk that a child may face and the court is likely to be assisted as to that aspect by psychiatric and/or psychological expert evidence.” Fran says that she has been diagnosed as likely to suffer from this syndrome by a Paediatrician who has not in fact ever met her. Further she says that the Psychiatrist(s) that know her do not agree. It is difficult to see how that diagnosis could possibly be made on a paper assessment before the baby has even been born and suffered any harm at all. Writing about diagnosing MBSP, Professor Tim David, a leading Paediatrician said: “This is one area where confusion can occur. The diagnosis is made in the same way as in any other case of physical abuse, and not by identifying certain parental characteristics, such as the mother being a nurse.” And even if it were true that Fran does have the condition of MBSP this does not mean she could not be given support and Psychiatric treatment.

hi, love the site…i just wanted to comment on the msbp / FII theory, unfortunately there are so many that are accused of fabrication… myself included, though i know exactly why it has happened, in my case my son has aspergers and it has been misconstrued as emotional abuse/neglect. Family Courts(dare i say it)are in my opinion definitely not for families. We have been shown the same ignorance within the court arena as we have experienced from professionals. Aspergers is a neurological condition not a psychiatric one, yet the court took the word of their child psyche, i was told not to question the psyches opinion as he was one of the judges golden boys and it would only annoy him….i have the evidence i need coming out of my ears for goodness sake its crazy… however because my local authority lack the training,knowledge or indeed provisions for a child like my son they are conveniently turning a blind eye and zooming the spotlight on myself. Im LIP at the moment about to appeal an ICO on my almost 12yr old son. ive been fighting to get his needs met for 4 yrs now. They state that if he gos into fostercare he will recieve all the assessments and support he needs.An EPO was granted not long ago because my son refused to go with the fostercarer.2 soc workers and 3 police turned up, it scared him to death. I talked, begged and pleaded with them for two hours and they let him stay with me. On the 13th he has to move in to fostercarers if he refuses they will do it again….its a nightmare, how good it must make them feel to harrass a disabled mum and autistic son….

Thank you Ms Gilliat for articulating the deep reservations felt by many of us regarding the case of Fran Lyon.

I would like to see the “expert”, Dr Ward Platt provide the scientific evidence upon which he based his original letter indicating that Ms Lyon might suffer from MSbP when Molly is born.

My research into this area shows that there is no evidence to support his theory, the Cannings judgement made it very clear that hypothesis without scientific data/research to back it up cannot be presented as fact in any court setting.

Furthermore, what is the evidence to support the allegation that Ms Lyon has Munchausen?

As Ms Lyon works alongside leading experts in the field of perosnality disorders (which Munchausen is said to fall into), it would seem to be impossible for them not to have noticed any aberrant behaviour in Ms Lyon during the years she has been in close contact with them.

These psychiatrists, have all stated that there is nothing wrong with Ms Lyon.

The question should now be, what qualifications does Dr Ward-Platt have to daignose an adult with a psychiatric disorder?